Convicted!

Share on Twitter: Tweet

If you have yet to hear - Dharun Ravi has been convicted on 15 charges, and faces 5 to 10 years in prison and deportation. Good news. It can never bring back Tyler or undo what was done, but at least Ravi will be held responsible for his actions.

In case you were wondering just what those actions were...
http://inothernews.tumblr.com/post/19403073958/the-newark-star-ledger-details-the-counts-and-verdicts

The Newark Star-Ledger details the counts and verdicts rendered against Dharun Ravi: →

COUNT 1
4th Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY
4th Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Clementi’s guest, M.B.:GUILTY
(Observed Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact without their consent on Sept. 19)
If Guilty, jury proceeds to count 2; if Not Guilty, jury skips count 2 and proceeds to count 3
COUNT 2
3rd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 4th Degree Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 19)
• Invasion of Privacy with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation:GUILTY
COUNT 3
3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi: GUILTY
3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B.: GUILTY
(Activated webcam so other people could view Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact on Sept 19.)
If Guilty, jury proceeds to count 4; if Not Guilty, jury skips count 4 and proceeds to count 5
COUNT 4
2nd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 3rd Degree Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 19)
• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED

• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated, because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation:GUILTY
COUNT 5
4th Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi:GUILTY
4th Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B.: GUILTY
(Tried to observe Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact without their consent on Sept. 21)
If Guilty, jury proceeds to count 6; if Not Guilty, jury skips count 6 and proceeds to count 7
COUNT 6
3rd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 4th Degree Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 21)
• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: GUILTY

• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation:GUILTY

COUNT 7
3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to Tyler Clementi:GUILTY
3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy, related to M.B.: GUILTY
(Tried to show Clementi/M.B. in sexual contact to other people on Sept. 21)
If Guilty, jury proceeds to count 8; if Not Guilty, jury skips count 8 and proceeds to count 9
COUNT 8
2nd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 21)

• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: ACQUITTED
• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation:GUILTY

COUNT 9
4th Degree Tampering with Physical Evidence: GUILTY
(Deleted tweets relevant to police investigation)
COUNT 10
4th Degree Tampering with Physical Evidence: GUILTY
(Wrote and posted a false tweet)
COUNT 11
3rd Degree Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution: GUILTY
(Destroyed evidence relevant to investigation)
COUNT 12
3rd Degree Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution: GUILTY
(Prevented a witness from providing testimony)
COUNT 13
3rd Degree Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution: GUILTY
(Lied to police)
COUNT 14
3rd Degree Witness Tampering: GUILTY
(Tried to influence what Molly Wei told police)
COUNT 15
4th Degree Tampering with Physical Evidence: GUILTY
(Deleted text messages sent to and received from witnesses)

I'm just surprised (and a little disgusted, actually), that there are so many people who think that Ravi shouldn't have been arrested at all because it was a suicide, not a direct murder. Clearly those people have no idea what the actual charges were and why. (And yes, I asked them.) Is "cyberbullying and an extreme invasion of privacy" suddenly not enough of an issue for them that there should be no consequences? Ravi did something so awful and invasive his that it lead his roommate to kill himself -- after numerous attempts to remove himself from Ravi's presence, attempts that were denied and ignored by the school-- and then Ravi tried to hide the evidence and convince a witness to lie for him. How is that not a problem?

Sunday Updates - What's going on out there?

Ok, let's try this. I still haven't finished that special post, because I've barely been home this weekend & haven't really been in the mood either. But I'm in such a great mood now, I figured hell why not see what's going on in the world. I'm going to try to make this a weekly Sunday thing. This way, we can recap last week and prepare for the new week all at the same time... Well, it sounded like a good idea before I said it :-D

Alright, here we go:

• Obligatory Sunday Anti-Tea-Party Op-Ed: Tea Party Talking Points, Translated Ok, enough silly fringe talk, let's get back to reality.
• Environmental News
• Gulf Oil Spill Update: BP well has officially been declared dead. Now if only we could get a proper cleanup going... The oil's still there, & the dispersants...
• Well this is just ridiculous - a Care2 blogger has issued a challenge, it seems. Wear only 6 items of clothing for an entire month. Buying less clothes is one thing, but simply wearing less is far more difficult for those of us who work, especially when we get dirty at work or have other obligations that require specific attire. And I DO pretty much wear the same outfit every day! (Uniform at work, though I do alternate between shirts & pants, & wash it all every few days or as needed.) Yes, life is easier when you don't have to think about what to wear in the morning, but for the majority of us, it's just not that practical or viable. I can only say that constantly doing tiny loads of laundry in order to have clean clothes & underwear for work is a bigger waste of energy than it's worth.
• Food & Diet: It seems that science continues to support what I've been saying about HFCS. (Which I guess makes sense, since my opinion is based on that science to begin with... I had this whole long rant on myspace regarding this, & myths surrounding soy...) Research regarding its effects on metabolism has been utterly inconclusive. As of right now, independent research it really is no worse for you than regular sugar. Sugar is sugar is sugar (though I would really suggest you go with more natural sugars, like beet or stevia or honey. Not because they're "better or you" or anything like that. Less random chemicals added, less refining, etc. But again, sugar is sugar. They're all pretty high in fructose, including honey and agave nectar, so seriously, just limit your sugar intake and you'll be fine.) It's not particularly good for you, like any other refined sugar product, but it's not going to kill you any faster than that other crap you're eating. It's the amount you're eating, not the product itself. But of course, it is in no way, shape, or form a "natural" product. Sorry, but it really pisses me off when items are marked "all natural" when they contain loads of artificial preservatives, flavorings, sweeteners, or colors. I'm so sick of green-washing -_-" but I'm also sick of the holier-than-thou attitudes of the Whole Foods/Trader Joes shoppers who snap at me for drinking a non-organic soda from Pathmark every once in a while. To each her own, ok? I may be a nature-loving eco-geek who screams at her mother for attempting to throw out an uncut 6-pack holder (that stupid plastic ring thing) on her birthday ("You're going to kill a dolphin !!!") & then fishes it out of the garbage & chops it up & then hides it with the recycling so it doesn't end up in the ocean, but jeez, lighten up a bit! :-P
• Also, you can check out this: Food Myths Busted. (most of it seems like old news, but still interesting.)
• What's Happening in Washington?
• w00t!! Elizabeth Warren has been appointed to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau! Sort of. We did it! (or rather, Obama realized that she really is the best candidate for some sort of advisory position regarding the bureau, & our incessant urging probably helped somewhat... maybe.) As the case may be, Warren is now a presidential economic advisor regarding the Bureau, and will be assisting the president in choosing a director... So... Looks like the job may not be hers. Harsh, man... Chins up, fellow liberals & progressives. It's not over yet.
• I'm starting to think that all politicians from Alaska are a little loopy. Unemployment benefits are unconstitutional?? I'm not even going to touch that, read it for yourself.
• It seems the GOP doesn't know what to do about the healthcare law. How about leave it alone. Or help us make it better.
• Between Palin & Angle & this O'Donnell character, I just really don't want to know. I don't care if she's dabbled in witchcraft or whatever she thinks she did (since Wicca has nothing to do with Satanism or Satanic altars...). So have I. I still have my Book of Shadows. (I wrote this really long spell/poem in calligraphy, I can't bear to throw it out!) Really, I just can't get past this whole "masturbation is adultery" thing. Last I checked, you had to be married to commit adultery. And she was a teenager when she said that, talking about other teenagers... who were probably not married. So what she's saying is you can't have sex with yourself, or someone of your own gender, or someone you're not married to, or allow yourself to ever feel or express any of your own 100% natural sexual urges even if you're not married because God gets angry & throws a tantrum when you're cheating on your non-existent spouse with your hand? And somehow it appears to make her feel like less of a person because her boyfriend doesn't need her in order to have an orgasm? And somehow that means she doesn't matter at all and might as well not be there? Hmm... Methinks her 1999 logic is a wee bit flawed, yes? News flash, honey: you can do it too, and I'm sure your boyfriend, or invisible husband, won't mind. Hopefully you've learned that by now. Plus I'm pretty sure the Monty Python gang had a go [video] at something like this too XD.
• P.S. - this woman is so damn annoying as a teen [video]. Typical nonsensical & religious crap. And the fact that she still seems to stand by a lot of it is pretty sad IMO. But Eddie Izzard was awesome, as he still is now.
• Tax Cuts: According to CNN, some economists believe we should extend the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone. I respectfully disagree. Middle class & lower class, fine, I've come to accept that as a necessary action, but the wealthy? Don't ever ask me to agree with you on that. I may not be a financial expert, but I'm not bad at math. Or logic. The government needs money to do good things for the country. The rich people have lots of money. Poor people don't. The poor people are great at spending money (because they have to in order to survive), and the rich people are great at saving money (because they have that luxury, among many others). Therefore, if you're going to take desperately needed money anyway, take it from the people who actually have it while either reducing or maintaining the burden on those who don't. Duh? We already know that "trickle-down" theory is complete and utter bullshit, so don't bother. Like I said, the rich are great at saving money. There's no reason why they should invest it in society voluntarily if they don't have to (other than the few altruists in the bunch). The top 2% will be just fine. A person doesn't need a $10 billion bonus in order to survive, but trust me, a $400 paycheck every few weeks is desperately needed if that's all you can get.
• Caribou Barbie: Does anyone care? I don't.
• Can't we All Just Get Along? Peace & Unity In the US: Check out One Nation Working Together.
• Immigration Reform: It would seem that we'll finally get a proper vote on the DREAM Act this week!!! If you missed my earlier posts on it, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act provides a conditional path to citizenship for undocumented minors who arrived in the US under the age of 16, provided they are accepted into college or join the military for at least 2 years.
• Stewart/Colbert: Huge rally on 10/30 in DC!!! Wish I could be there :-(
• Coffee Part USA: This upcoming Friday begins the Convention in Kentucky. If you can't make it (like me...), you can check out www.democracymeetup.com for information about what's going on, or watch the live stream of the conference here [video].
• LGBT rights: Well of course we'll always have bigots & homophobes who want to make homosexuality illegal, but those of us who actually give a fuck about equal rights for all can...
• TAKE ACTION: Via Care2 & the Human Rights Campaign, a Petition to pass ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation. Federal laws currently only prohibit discrimination based on age, ethnicity, religion, nationality, & gender (not including transsexuals/transgender people, however.) Though my lovely state has a pretty decent anti-discrimination policy, if I do say so myself... at least, compared to the federal laws. We all still have a long way to go regarding marriage rights, however. (We recognize same-sex domestic parnerships, or a civil union with almost all of the same exact rights as a marriage, but thanks to DOMA, well... "Nevermind." Now's the time when we should miss Corzine (as if there ever were a time when we shouldn't. I had nothing against the guy except his smear campaign during the election & the fact that not much major happened during his term, which is why I preferred the Independent...) If it had ever been put before him, he would've signed same-sex marriage into law... & our current moron said he'd veto it. But enough about us, let's get on with the rest of the country...
• DADT: In addition to the DREAM Act, Harry Reid has included a repeal of DADT in the Defense Authorization Bill (which authorizes more military spending -_-" A worthy trade off? I hope so.) With the recent court ruling that DADT is unconstitutional (!!!), there has been a significant push for repeal now. Let's hope it goes through! (Haha, though I have to say I'm a little disappointed that I no longer have a surefire excuse to get out of military service should I ever be drafted. But if it keeps soldiers safe within their own ranks, and protects them from unfair abuse and discrimination, I'd gladly give that up!)

So, look at that! I got through the whole week's news without getting depressed too! Not bad. Anyway, I'm off to tell yet another "I want a threesome with a black girl!" bastard to fuck off. Don't ask, I don't want to tell. Well, ok, it sounds like a nice policy at face value, in some areas. You know, when someone's job or safety isn't on the line. No one should ever be forced to reveal information about their private lives. However, as that isn't the case...

I read a story of this one woman... She was a sergeant, I believe, and several of the men under her found out that she was a lesbian. They raped her, repeatedly, over the course of a year, and forced her to do other kinds of demeaning, violent sexual acts, under threat of telling the commanders her secret and getting her fired . And then they told them anyway. She was discharged from the army. The men never received any sort of punishment whatsoever. This woman lost everything because of this horrible law... her privacy, her safety, her rights, her peace of mind, her body, her career, her life. And thousands of men and women are abused everyday and can't say a word for fear of losing the careers they've spend their entire lives working towards-- a career in which they have literally put their lives on the line for their fellow soldiers and citizens. Because of who they love. Because of hate and fear and bigotry and religious zealots forcing their misguided beliefs on others. Tell me how that's just.

If my fucking state can promise that no one will ever have to be subjected this kind of treatment because of their orientation, why can't my government? Why can't the military?!?!?  

REPEAL DADT NOW!

I guess I wanted to be upset tonight.

Prop 8 Ruling - Guest Post by Storyteller Knight

So we're all thrilled about the Prop 8 ruling, and I am SOOOO very excited to present the first ever guest post, written by my awesome friend (and La Campanella Award winner) Storyteller Knight!! So, without further ado, Storyteller Knight!!
--D.A.K.

Okay, really?
by Storyteller Knight

Happy happy happy that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. But, I'm reading up right now on how the case went down and my reaction is somewhere between O.o and -.-'

So basically the defenders of Prop 8 were like 'God the dictionary* says we're right, so you have to rule based on that'. And the opponents of Prop 8 were like 'here's a mountain of evidence as to why Prop 8 is unconstitutional and discriminatory'. And the judge was like 'defenders of Prop 8, I feel really silly ruling on this case because you really haven't presented one, please give me something.' And the defenders of Prop 8 were like "We don't have to prove anything" (that would be a direct quote, not me paraphrasing).

::sigh:: No longer surprised that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional.

Going forward, my gut instinct is that this ruling will hold. Because really? The dictionary? And even if it doesn't, I don't think neither the Appellate Court nor the Supreme Court will be able to rule against Judge Walker's verdict (even if they wanted to) without ordering a new trial, simply because the defenders of Prop 8 did such a piss poor job of presenting their case. They only called two witnesses and one of them was deemed inadmissible because his testimony was inept and contradictory (This guy argued that polygamy fit within his (note- his, not mine, not the judge's, not society's, his) definition of marriage (opposite sex, two people and sexual) because a man only had one ceremony at a time and since he didn't marry all five wives in one ceremony, each marriage is distinct and okay. He also agreed with the opponents of Prop 8 that same sex marriage would reduce prejudice and hate crimes, increase the standard of living and benefit the couples and their children but we shouldn't do it because God the dictionary the institution of marriage wouldn't like it)

It's like a murder trial where the defendant swears up and down that he wasn't at the scene of the crime and he says he's got a million witnesses that place him somewhere else. But he only calls two witnesses. And one of the witnesses testifies that the defendant wasn't actually at this somewhere else. He doesn't know where the defendant was, but he's sure it wasn't at the murder scene. Oh, and defendant totally had motive, means and opportunity to commit the murder, but he didn't do it. Probably. Meanwhile, the prosecution brings forth witnesses who saw the defendant commit the murder, evidence that the gun was his, his fingerprints are on it and present a pretty impressive motive. And then, in closing arguments, the defendant's lawyer says that the judge can't possibly find his client guilty because his picture is in the dictionary next to the definition of 'model citizen.'

No judge, along any step of the appeals can rule this guy not guilty without ordering a new trial demanding that the million people who the defendant claims saw him somewhere else testify. I feel like it's the same thing with the Prop 8 case. Judge Walker did the only thing he could do in ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional, because only one set of evidence was presented to him. Maybe he really believes that Prop 8 was constitutional and maybe he thinks there's mountains of case work and precedent that supports the ban. But he can't rule on any of that, he can only rule on what was presented during the case. And what was presented was the dictionary. And his ruling probably can't be overturned without the stipulation that evidence beyond the dictionary's definition of marriage being between a man and a woman actually be presented.

If I'm wrong here, someone please correct me. But if I am wrong, that's stupid. Because you shouldn't win a case like this simply because God the dictionary the institution of marriage you think you should without ever presenting any evidence as you why you are legally in the right. And the defenders of Prop 8 have yet to do that. And until they do, there is no judge out there (I hope) who will rule in their favor. Even if that judge wrongly believes on a personal level that Prop 8 is legal and constitutional.

So today we should celebrate all the stupid bigots of the world. Cause they actually make progress so much easier. :D

* "You only need to go back to your chambers and pull down any dictionary or book that defines marriage," Cooper told the judge. "You won't find it had anything to do with homosexuality."

Right, dude. Cause the dictionary never changes. -.-'

Updates! Current State of the Union...?

Ok, so maybe it's been quite a while since I've finished a post. And there's just so much going on all over the place that I haven't been able to just stop for a moment to sort my thoughts and get them down. Between my vacation time this weekend, weird dreams, & attempting to read a book (when I really don't have the time to get past a chapter, speed reading and all, since I kept stopping to "argue" with the author...), & now I'm here trying to finish this post and a private one before I leave (for who knows where...). I'm sure you get my point. So I need to play catch-up with what's going on again. (Like when I took a week off to play video games & regain my composure after a total mental breakdown, & totally missed that whole Scott Brown thing... lol... Oh well, not like it turned out to be that bad overall.) Brief comments about the state of the country:

Single Payer Healthcare
-- Vermont is attempting to push through a single-payer program, but might be stopped by the federal law... The plan, championed by a grassroots organization and based on the idea of healthcare as an undeniable human right, advocates the abolition of all for-profit health plans in favor of a state-run non-profit system.However, the healthcare legislation passed this year has provisions for state programs that specifies that a state program cannot interfere with the insurance provided by large employers. (Kucinich attempted to get a waiver included in the legislation, but as usual, progressive ideas were quashed...) Story Available Here.

Arizona Immigration Law
--As far as I've seen, most of the Arizona law SB1070 is still blocked. Good news indeed... (Wondering if Hollywood/music scene is really against the law because it's become the "in" thing to do, or if they're seriously into it... Either way, works for me, I guess. We're humans first. Nationality second (though I can think of a ton of other things that matter more too). To add some weird news, Ms. Palin has decided she had to talk about our President's "family jewels" (to be polite here...) in relation to this law... Way to take the debate back to high school. (Not to mention it's kinda sexist -_-" C'mon, really? Yea, Democrats are wusses. But this phrase that basically means that only men have what it takes to get shit done? Bull. Though to quote the great Leopold "Butters" Stotch, girls just keep 'em on the inside :-D)

BP Oil Spill
-- The MSM continues to hide the fact that there's still oil all over the gulf and in Michigan too. (Article 1, Article 2). No, the microbes couldn't possibly have cleaned it all up already. Yes, normally oil would float, & perhaps it's not as visible in some areas, but you're forgetting that a) dispersants break it up into smaller & smaller pieces that spread out all over the place; b) those dispersants are HIGHLY TOXIC, not to mention the fact that crude oil is also HIGHLY TOXIC; c) oil can sink. Someone commented on a news article & told another person that they should "go back to science class. oil can't be on the ocean floor because it floats on water!" I think that had this commenter actually thought about science class, perhaps they would have remembered that the reason that oil floats is because it is less dense than water, however should the oil mix with something (say, a dispersant, or particles in the water like salt or debris...), it could easily become more dense than the water and sink to a lower level. Different oils have different densities. Crude oil on it's own is actually quite dense. When it's exposed to air, water, or bacteria, it gets denser-- the lighter parts evaporate away, leaving behind heavy sediment. (Look up Heavy Crude Oil.) So let's focus on cleanup & stop pretending the problem's gone just because we might not be able to see it.

Congressman Anthony Weiner's 9/11 Healthcare Rant
-- My favorite congressman Anthony Weiner went on another passionate rant recently over the 9/11 workers' healthcare. It was epic. (And I can't believe I missed it & had to find it on youtube on my phone at like 1 am Saturday morning... Luckily, his office sent me a link later, too.) It's one thing to be a passionate ranting lunatic when you're spouting lies and conspiracy theories and you do it all the time (*cough*glennbeck*cough), but Weiner is one of the few who actually sticks to facts and I love that he shows how he really feels... (If he's faking it, he should consider Hollywood; he really seems legit.) Democrats have to learn to get angry when they should be. Occasionally, sometimes it's good to lose your temper when people are being ridiculous. Sometimes, it's absolutely justified. When people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, have at it. I'll expect similar reactions once this BP mess is finally cleaned up...

Political Celebrity News
-- Ok, everyone's talking about it, so I'll just mention it really fast and get the "celebrity" gossip out of the way- Chelsea Clinton's dress was GORGEOUS. (And I don't usually like Vera Wang. Or excessively ruffly dresses. And omg Bill looks eerily thin... I think he looked a bit healthier before...) ^^"

Bush's Tax Cuts
-- Cute how Republicans want to extend tax cuts without paying for them, & add to the deficit, but anything Democrats propose has to be paid for and then some. Really, watching them bicker, from the outside, is just so amusing. Like hell should they keep the cuts. This is money the gov't should've had, so yea, time for the free pass to expire. We need revenue in order to fix a deficit, and Mitch McConnell's argument (that the tax cuts help the economy) doesn't really work here. If he were talking about people living below the poverty line, then yes, absolutely. If he were talking about the middle class, then yes, his argument would make sense. But the wealthy? Yea, no. This may be a bit obvious, but rich people tend to save money, & poor people spend. Every good economist knows that if you want to stimulate the economy, you give money to poor people, not to the wealthy. (Trickle-down theory doesn't work. It would be nice if certain people stopped "pretending" it does.) And tell me again how it's fair for the people who don't have money to pay taxes that ultimately benefit the wealthy, but the wealthy don't have to pay a dime? Seems a little backwards to me. So I'm with Greenspan on this one.

Petitions for Elizabeth Warren as Head of Consumer Protection Agency
--We're still trying to get Obama to pick Elizabeth Warren for the new consumer protection agency. The first time I heard about her, I thought she would be a shoe-in for the position (this was just before the bill was passed). But hopefully, with enough of an "outburst" so to speak, we'll be able to influence Obama to appoint her... Petitions:
CredoAction
Change.org (also for Credo)
Petition from Senator Bernie Sanders (D,VT)
Bold Progressives/Credo (Credo's really into this one, huh...)
Public Citizen

In the end, it seems pretty likely that she will be nominated. She's perfect for the job. Plus it was her idea in the first place, wasn't it? So, best of luck, Ms. Warren, we're fighting for you!

I'm off to find more ice for my knee. (I haven't a clue what happened the first time, but it was already bruised pretty badly before I smashed it into the corner of my nightstand... Ow...) Back to work tomorrow... And eventually I'll get back to a regular post.

Philosophy of Politics & Law - Attempt #1

I seem to have lost my voice again-- both literally and figuratively. So I ask you to please forgive me as I try to find it.

My mind has been spinning from all of the information being thrown at me. Introvert + ADD + Sensory overload= ... I wonder if it really was that easy in school to have a single train of thought at a time simply because the syllabi organized everything so neatly... I think perhaps it's time for me to go about this in another manner. While my mind is always so unusually disorganized and "jumpy," I'm going to try to keep this simple and follow a single directive-- like a thesis.

I've noticed in recent weeks that there have been several new attempts to redefine what it means to be "liberal" or "progressive" in modern times, especially considering the rise of New Left and neo-conservative movements. I thought it would be interesting to trace the roots of modern thought to define how and why we as liberals/progressives came to believe what we do, and why they are closely related but are not the same thing. So over the next few weeks, I want to examine not only current events but the philosophy behind them—why is it such a controversy; what are the arguments and the reasoning behind them; how do we go about solving these problems, and why do we choose what we do? Things in life are never as simple as we try to make them.

(Again, here is where one of those mandatory classes I never thought would be useful actually has a purpose...) Someone once claimed to me that law has nothing to do with philosophy, that enforcing laws and borders “isn't all that philosophical." Such a claim to me shows great naïveté about not only law but also philosophy as a whole-- though then again, I spent a great deal of time studying philosophy during my life, so perhaps I am just overly sensitive to these things. Politics, law, and social thought are all derived from philosophy, the study of existence, knowledge, values, etc. How we define the world and other beings determines what we perceive to be right and wrong, which is translated into politics (the process by which we make collective decisions), which is then translated into laws (collective decisions that are then formally enforced as rules). Changes in the political structure reflect changes in social thought, which are motivated by philosophy -- after all, political ideology is a set of ideas and expectations based on common sense and philosophical thought. For example, the need for economic recovery in terms of employment is based on several core principles: 1) humans need food, shelter, etc. in order to survive; 2) In order to fairly obtain our basic needs, we use a system of bartering in which we trade something (to which we have ascribed a value) for what we need; 3) In order to fairly obtain that "something of value," we have created an exchange system in which we provide a service or "goods." This seems basic and common sense so far, right? Now, take note of all of the philosophy behind it-- ethics, in terms the notion of fairness and justice derived from "natural law"; ethics, in terms of hunger and homelessness; sense of purpose and community, in terms of providing what others need; sense of self, being, and empathy, in terms of recognizing ourselves in others. As a result of this philosophy and common threads, we as a society have created rules to govern our Employment and the economic system are first and foremost not about "every man for himself" but how we all help each other to provide for our basic needs. It is a system, a set of interdependent bodies amalgamated to create a whole. And that is precisely what a society is.

I will leave you with this, for tonight… I have a lot to think about over the next few days… What does a society mean to you? What is the purpose of that society, and how has it affected who you are and what you believe? What would you think about the world if you were born into a different culture?